Buehrle>Wood

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 04:53 PM) This should be an easy case, either it is in the contract or its not. Unless this is some sort of bizarro world where they had junior high school students drafting the contract there will be something called a integration/merger clause so either its in the contract or its not. Id be willing to bet its not in the contract so this wont go far. I just really hope it doesn't delay the Sox spending money now though.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 17, 2016 -> 03:43 PM) I hate to admit that it's Jemele Hill that made a great point, but for everyone asking if KW would have done this if LaRoche played well last year....would LaRoche have quit if he was coming off of a good season? No. Although I not sure sox would have said somethino either.

Atrocious reffing in the Duke game.

Maryland Oklahoma Virginia UNC

Pretty weird to make it commercial free. Lot of down or uninteresting time in spring training.

Talk about some pressure on the kid too. Your dad just threw away 14 million and you're at the center of the controversy. That said if my dad told me to go away for a few days and he'd make 50 grand, I'm pretty sure I'd understand by age 14.

When I first heard it, I assumed the kid was a toddler or someone not in school. That's pretty strange for a 14 year old.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 04:49 PM) So, let me make sure I understand the argument. Your position is that a Trump presidency would destroy the Republican Party. The establishment are the ones who take money from special interests, and that could create a ripple effect altering the system. If my understanding of your argument is correct, it still doesn't alter the point that it takes millions of dollars to run for office at the federal level, in part because of the way the system is set up. Do you think that Trump would make changes to that system (ie, advocating campaign finance reform or putting justices on the Supreme Court who might overturn Citizens United)? Without that, then even if you are correct and a Trump presidency creates a shock to the system and collapses the entrenched Republican establishment, the money and the special interests are just going to latch on to the next crop in Washington... unless the entire political system is going to be filled with self-supporting billionaires who can finance their own campaigns. That's why I'm struggling with your argument. I'm following what you would like the end result to be. I just don't see how Trump accomplishes that. I'll address this a lot further in another post but I've spent way too much time in this thread today so I'll take a bit of a break. Yes, I expect him to do everything in his power to change campaign finance reform. He's got an ugly, personal vendetta against super pacs and I doubt he suddenly forgets that if he were to take office. I think the rest of the disconnect here involves not acknowledging that in this hypothetical Trump will be the President of the United States. That makes him the de facto leader of the Republican party or whatever it is by that point. This is perhaps more key than any appointment or piece of legislation. Pacs/Corporations/Donors will still be at odds with the man, and as a leader, it should have ripple effects. I'll get into why into another post but I just don't see the Donald Trump movement ending at one guy especially when he's the most powerful person in the world.

I mentioned you need more than Trump himself. I get the next group will be the same as the previous one. Trump is merely the starting point, and it's a lot easier to start from the top. Him reeking havoc on both parties isn't likely to exist in a vacuum if he's able to take the presidency. Edit: this was to bmags.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 04:07 PM) I don't agree with B>W or his support of Trump, but Christ if this isn't just a typical SS post here. "You don't agree with me therefore you're a deluded irrational moron!" Just call him a bigot and we can all go home. Ha thanks. I have more posts by far of anyone in here which have almost all come very recently. I try to get to everyone and every post but the overall combativeness certainly makes me less motivated.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:55 PM) BW, quick question for you here: As I read your responses, one of the big selling points to you with Trump is that he isn't beholden to special interests and you want to see money move out of politics. There are no current rules that keep money out of politics. In fact, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United led to the majority of these PACs and Super PACs. Trump is someone who has benefitted from the lax campaign finance laws. As he likes to continually point out, candidates on both sides of the aisle have curried his favor, seeking his money and influence. Do you honestly think that a Trump Presidency would change campaign finance laws? Do you think Trump would put justices on the Supreme Court who might overturn Citizens United? Wouldn't Trump be a one-off? A billionaire capable of financing his own campaign is an anomaly - it's not something that would alter the system. I guess what I'd like to drill down on is why a Trump Presidency would have any change on the impact of money and special interest in politics generally. Few things: Yes, I find it ridiculous it takes Trump, a billionaire who has bribed the very politicians he's running against, to do this. The problem though is with politicians accepting money. Trump merely gave it, and has no reason to accept it. The system is completely broken, and Trump, being the foremost expert on it, is the first to admit that. Would Trump be an anomaly? Perhaps. That's why I want him to destroy the Republican party. Connections between corporations and politics would be ruined if he's able to oust the Republican leadership. Those connections would hardly be irreparable so yes, its going to take more than Trump. My hope for Trump is to open the eyes of the voter base and I do believe he's the perfect man to do it. I get people hate his showmanship but it's a huge benefit here. He grabs the attention of absolutely everyone, love him or hate him. Trump has done a great job of calling out Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and now Kasich for their connections but it needs to hit overdrive in the GE. Thanks to Trump, the debates vs Hillary will likely be among the most watched television shows in U.S. history. What better platform than for Trump to come out and tell the world how she took bribes from him as well as expose her as the most calculated political machine of our time.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) You're such a fanboy. Kasich also dropped out so Fox had to cancel it. Not much of a debate to have Ted Cruz, or anyone else, up there by himself. Blame cnn for burying that. http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/dona...-fox/index.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) I'd say that the closest you've come to addressing his racial demogogeury was to hand-wave away the KKK/David Duke stuff. I don't recall you really commenting on his birtherism, Mexicans=racists/criminals, deport all illegals, ban all Muslims, retweet black crime "statistics" from literal neo-nazis, pigs-blood-bullets, immigrants-as-dangerous-snakes-parable etc. If trade protectionism and getting money out of politics are your primary concerns, why do you gravitate towards Trump instead of Sanders? Sanders also strongly opposes the TPP, and his SC nominees are much more likely to overturn CU than Trump's would be. I showed the video of his literally disavowing of Duke but I guess that's handwaving away. I found it ridiculous he had to do it every interview. It's gotcha political discussion at its absolute worst. A grand wizard just supported Hillary too but I'm sure she won't be asked about that. And she shouldnt. Stop wasting your breath on these people. This is the reason these discussions go literally nowhere. You're not convincing me and I'm not convincing you here, clearly. I commented on his birtherism the last page back and it really goes hand and hand with everything. You're being played by even giving it attention. I've addressed this Sanders stuff too already like a lot. We're going in circles on everything. I like him. He'd be my second choice. He just has had 0 chance of getting elected and getting threatened by his supporters was a big turnoff for me, but I don't really hold it against him. What I do hold against him was his response to the aftermath of Friday.

Fox cancels next debate after Trump drops. Has them by the balls I guess.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) You want to address any of the shortcomings in your understanding of trumps positions or why you are choosing to ignore the racial demagoguery that's central to his campaign? I understand his positions just fine. Sorry it's hard to reply 10 to 1 on here at work. On the racial side, I've addressed it 1000 times before including conversations with you. I don't think think there's much left to say.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 01:10 PM) Over half of his supporters havent finished college and make less than 50k per year. He may have "other supporters" but thats his majority like it or not. So his base is in line with people who voted in 2012? I imagine that's everyone's base because that's the American voting base. 53% of voters didn't graduate college. 41% in 2012 made less than 50k which is actually more than the Newsweek poll I read, which had 33% of Trump voters making less than 50k. Most of these national polls right now are pretty ridiculously inaccurate and outdated though so I won't even use that. I'd look at state by state exit polling if you want to try and tell a story here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 12:21 PM) That is a slight of hand to completely discract from your first statement. His supporters are by the highest numbers holding terrible opinions that would literally push this country back 150 years. THAT is why he gets the reputation, and the fact that he is pandering to that lowest common denominator. You can redirect the focus to whatever talking point you like, but the facts are the facts. You literally highlited me talking about the polls. I posted the polls.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2016 -> 10:57 AM) Your very first line is going in the wrong direction. While it isn't "ALL", the Trump camp has attracted BY FAR the largest numbers of these types of supporters. In a study of exit polls they found, -A third supported banning gays and lesbians from entering the country. -a third of Trump’s backers believe that Japanese internment during World War II was a good idea. -When asked voters if they thought whites were a superior race, only 69 percent disagreed. -70% wish the Confederate battle flag were still flying on their statehouse grounds -38 percent of them wish the South had won the Civil War -Nearly 20 percent of Trump’s voters disagreed with Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation -Voters were asked if they favored temporarily barring Muslims who are not citizens from entering the United States, something Mr. Trump advocates, and 74 percent said they did. He won 41 percent of that group. These numbers BLOW AWAY anyone else in the races. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/m...-share&_r=1 You're using exit polling from one state that happened a month ago. Let's throw in the actual demographics to actually address what I said. Trump does great with the "uneducated". He does well with everyone else as well though, He won with college graduates in Illinois, Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, Massachusetts, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Vermont. He's won with post graduates in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts(if were playing this game, that's the smartest people in the smartest state in the country), Mississippi, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Tennessee. Exit polling isn't available everywhere, but where it is he's winning. He's winning across every demographic pretty much everywhere, which is why the attempts to stereotype his supporters as one thing come off as hilariously bitter.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 10:19 PM) It all makes sense! Actually B>W, do you mind explaining your Trump support? I'm legitimately curious. You've said you're happy he's bringing down the GOP establishment. OK. But there's gotta be something else there, no? I've seen you posting here for over a decade, I know you're a smart guy. And I can understand why Jim Bob in backwater Florida is all over Trump. But it's his intelligent supporters, the ones who can actually think for themselves, that I just don't understand. Sure. I'll start with the false narrative that Trumps supporters are all redneck white trash, or whatever idea is being pushed around here. The polls show differently (hes won across all demos), so I think people just get confused on how vocal his supporters are. One of Trumps slogans mentions the silent majority supporting him. Theres Probably something to that. I can think of at least 2 other prominent Soxtalk members who I'm 95% sure support Trump but won't say it. Easy to see why. So far I've been referred to at least indirectly as "retarded", "white trash" "racist" "uneducated" "coward" etc and thats just in the last few pages alone. I don't blame them for not wanting to be on the receiving end of that. I feel I've been a good sport about it, as I cant help but laugh it off. You know how you could laugh at people who said Obama was the anti-christ and would bring us 500 years of darkness? Now it's the same from the otherside. First Trump was Hitler, then he was the KKK, then Mussollini. Just last night CNN compared him to Fidel Castro. Anyways, onto why I support him. I read The Art of the Deal way back when. Terrific, terrific book. It's funny, his whole campaign strategy is laid out in there. You'd think his opponents and detractors would simply give it a read and maybe, just maybe they can take him down. It gives great insight to who he is as a person. Reading a book is hardly the reason I support him now. Just the opposite actually for a time (particularly in 2012). I saw him as a showman who'd do anything to grab his own headlines to the detriment of the party. Now he still is that, but I've learned to appreciate it since the people whose political careers he is ruining are not good people and certainly don't have our best interests in mind. Trump really came onto the scene for me politically about 2 years ago when he came out and exposed TPP for what it was: a trade deal negotiated in secrecy that benefits absolutely no one in the US other than the top line of big businesses while doing nothing but hurting the American workforce. It sort of exposed to me the idea that America has basically become a corporate oligarchy. The politicians in charge do not care about who they are meant the serve. Instead, they're all basically puppets, with every word out of their mouths carefully manufactured by whatever money is funding them. From TPP to Obamacare, nothing is getting passed unless the powers at be basically write it themselves. So shouldn't I find it ridiculous that the solution to this problem is to elect a man worth 6 billion dollars? Of course I do. But that's where we are right now. Better him than someone who is taking millions each from Comcast, Google, Soros, Koch Bros Goldman Sachs, CBS, etc. Having self interest is better than corporate interest. There are reasons every billionaire big-wig, including his past friends, and media source hate the man more than anything. They fear that, finally, a man they can't control is about to take over. I truly believe the single most important issue of our time is the amount of money in politics and Trump can be the first step towards solving that. I'm sure you'll say, well he can't do it alone, one election wont change anything, and that's very true. It is why it's very important he destroys the Republican party en route to the White House. He's doing a great job of it already. I'm also tired of the neocon foreign policy that has dominated Washington for 16+ years now and has caused more problems than solutions. Under Clinton, I'd imagine that would continue. People like to talk about what the president can and can't do. You may hear "how much damage could Trump really do?" I of course don't think he will do much damage, but this is one area I believe he can change basically overnight. Most other things he wants to change will admittedly be tough. Few other smaller things: -Planned Parenthood: Not that my vote would ever take this into consideration, but my god, he has such a refreshing and shockingly simple "solution" to this controversy than whatever the hell other Republicans are trying to pull. -Calling for lower taxes on the middle and lower class while closing corporate loopholes. Cool with me. -Audit the fed: lol they'll never let him do this. -Basically supports a different version of Universal healthcare to replace Obamacare -Despite all the hilarious things he called Rosie O'Donnell, he has a lot better track record dealing with women's issues than anyone else on the Republican side. Theres more but this is too long anyways and you've probably quit reading by now.

I get 500 if Trump wins the nomination. That's back from last August.

Anyone have a link to district by district results in Illinois?

Hillary plagiarizing Bernie's speeches is just amazing. Have to imagine bernie fans are irate right now.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 07:23 PM) Doesn't help him a lot. With Rubio out Kasich gets enough delegates to keep Trump from getting a majority. How does Kasich get any more delegates even? He had 60 coming into the night and that was with every state being proportional so far. Now almost every state is winner take all or winner take most. Im sure hell pick up a couple but nothing significant. Im talking microscopic amount. He has no money. You'd figure Pennsylvania would be his second best state, but he couldn't get the 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot there on time.

Loved Rubio trying to claim he's anti-estblishment to save his dead career. At least he finally sees the death of the Republican party coming.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 15, 2016 -> 07:36 PM) If young people aren't actually excited, they're probably just not voting. Correct.